Opinion
No. 1 CA-CR 14-0656 PRPC
10-20-2016
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. RANDALL MARC KORELC, Petitioner.
COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Susan L. Luder Counsel for Respondent Randall Marc Korelc, San Luis Petitioner
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CR2007-172851-001
The Honorable Connie Contes, Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED
COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix
By Susan L. Luder
Counsel for Respondent
Randall Marc Korelc, San Luis
Petitioner
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen, Judge Jon W. Thompson and Chief Judge Michael J. Brown delivered the decision of the court.
PER CURIAM:
¶1 Randall Marc Korelc petitions for review of the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. We have considered the petition for review and, for the reasons stated, grant review but deny relief.
¶2 Following a jury trial, Korelc was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to an 18-year prison term. This court affirmed the conviction and sentence on appeal. State v. Korelc, 1 CA-CR 11-0184, 2012 WL 2786184 (Ariz. App. July 5, 2012) (mem. decision).
¶3 Korelc commenced a timely proceeding for post-conviction relief and filed a pro se petition in which he asserted a variety of claims, including ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial and judicial misconduct, multiple trial errors and actual innocence. In summarily dismissing the petition, the superior court issued a ruling that clearly identified, fully addressed and correctly resolved the claims. Under these circumstances, we need not repeat that court's analysis here; instead, we adopt it. See State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274 (App. 1993) (when superior court rules "in a fashion that will allow any court in the future to understand the resolution[,]" there is no purpose in "rehashing the trial court's correct ruling").
¶4 Accordingly, although we grant review, we deny relief.